When did Iran threaten the United States?

[Zhade]

Did I miss it?

I ask because I keep seeing even good liberals here on DU argue that 'something must be done' about the 'threat' from Iran. This, despite the fact that Iran doesn't have all of the technology yet to fulfill nuclear weapons ambitions (see Seymour Hersh on this subject) and the fact that the Iranian government, whatever it may be, is not suicidally intent on launching a nuclear war.

So, if anyone can show me where Iran threatened us in such a manner that we 'need' to 'take action' 'before it's too late', I'll be grateful.

Otherwise, I'll end up wondering why even some DUers are AGAIN falling for the LIE that Iran (last time it was the lie that Iraq) is a threat.

[H2O Man]

1. They invaded Iraq ....

oopps! That was us.

[WCGreen]

91. IRAQ invaded them...

With a not so subtle push from Rummy and George the father....

[Coexist]

100. LOL!

H2Oman, You are usually so serious and sane in your posts - so it was even funnier coming from you.

[H2O Man]

127. Thank you.

I figured when one friend "explained" that Iraq invaded Iran that it likely did not register as an attempt at humor with some DUers.

[SammyWinstonJack]

126. It's always us, isn't it?

:-(

[meganmonkey]

2. Right here:

The proposed Iranian oil bourse signifies that without some sort of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project of U.S. global domination, Tehran’s objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on dollar supremacy in the crucial international oil market.
http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html

(on edit: Don't know much about this particular source - just google "iranian bourse" for more. This was the first one to come up. Looks like an interesting site though...)

[NanceGreggs]

5. Well, that just NAILS IT!

How dare anyone encroach on dollar supremacy - especially when, thanks to Bush, we have so few dollars left ...

[Beam Me Up]

62. Dont worry, NanceG, they're printing more as fast as they can.

[Aimah]

7. I heard rumors before the Iraq War

Supposedly Sadam was thinking about moving towards the Euro

[meganmonkey]

16. Yep - in fact he already had:

In November 2000, Iraq became the first OPEC nation to begin selling its oil for Euros. Since then, the value of the Euro has increased 17%, and the dollar has begun to decline. One important reason for the invasion and installation of a U.S. dominated government in Iraq was to force the country back to the dollar. Another reason for the invasion is to dissuade further OPEC momentum toward the Euro, especially from Iran- the second largest OPEC producer, who was actively discussing a switch to Euros for its oil exports.
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/19.html

[Zhade]

18. self-delete

Megan answered my question.

[EuroObserver]

24. Iranian oil bourse & US dollar great link here:

http://www.321gold.com/editorials/petrov/petrov011706.html

(Thanks to 54anickel, DU Stock Market Watch, Wednesday):

In 1971, as it became clearer and clearer that the U.S Government would not be able to buy back its dollars in gold, it made in 1972-73 an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and also accept only dollars. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. Because the world needed ever increasing quantities of oil at ever increasing oil prices, the world's demand for dollars could only increase. Even though dollars could no longer be exchanged for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil.

The economic essence of this arrangement was that the dollar was now backed by oil. As long as that was the case, the world had to accumulate increasing amounts of dollars, because they needed those dollars to buy oil. As long as the dollar was the only acceptable payment for oil, its dominance in the world was assured, and the American Empire could continue to tax the rest of the world. If, for any reason, the dollar lost its oil backing, the American Empire would cease to exist. Thus, Imperial survival dictated that oil be sold only for dollars. It also dictated that oil reserves were spread around various sovereign states that weren't strong enough, politically or militarily, to demand payment for oil in something else. If someone demanded a different payment, he had to be convinced, either by political pressure or military means, to change his mind.

The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was in order. Bush's Shock-and-Awe in Iraq was not about Saddam's nuclear capabilities, about defending human rights, about spreading democracy, or even about seizing oil fields; it was about defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire. It was about setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise punished. /more...

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[meganmonkey]

52. I got inspired:

LOL - I hadn't even seen your reply yet. But thanks for the warning! It's doing okay so far, for the most part, but it just amazes me how many people are falling for this. AGAIN!!! :scared:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=187934&mesg_id=187934

[Zhade]

54. Scares the hell outta me too, MM.

NT!

[Coastie for Truth]

107. You don't need to go to political blogs and sites

PNAC itself admits it's all about OIL - read their tome http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf|Rebuilding America's Defenses> - it's all about oil. Then try A Century Of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order by F. William Engdahl, or Jim Kunstler's The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of the Oil Age, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century (a favorite on DU Energy/Environment, and DU Peak Oil - and we had a book talk on it - and Jared Diamond's Collapse at our Progressive Club meeting).

[ProfessorGAC]

94. What Would That Be?

Exactly what would that be, that we who don't buy into the "bourse theory" always post and where we post? Or are you just going to do a drive-by insult?
The Professor

[Coastie for Truth]

108. It's a drive by insult NT

[Coastie for Truth]

102. Energybulletin is a reliable source

gets cited very frequently by the regulars on and . Gets cited as much as IEEE Spectrum and the Amertican Chemical Society newsletters - by the same posters.

Paul Krugman had a few articles on the impact of a Euro denominated oil bourse, and spent a few minutes discussing it with Al Franken. The gist: "A return a to pre-Bretton Woods chaos." See Krugman's "International Economics: Theory and Policy" for some discussion of the theory.

[Ron Green]

3. Didn't some of them threaten us in 1979?

[William769]

10. Yep I believe they are the leaders now.

[Patsy Stone]

4. 1978

If I remember correctly. :)

[FreedomAngel82]

8. Oh well then

That's a whole different thng! We must attack them. How dare we be the only people to have nuclear weapons! Nobody else can! So I'm going to take my ball and go cry to my Mommy. :sarcasm:

[Patsy Stone]

20. But it's okay if we're not sure you have them

like Israel (wink, wink). Oy. This is a bad, bad thing.

[The Stranger]

114. NPR (Neocon Public Relations) opened the news with the Hostage crisis,

somehow finding something 30 years old more newsworthy than the criminal administration's laughable justification for committing mass violations of civil liberties in warrantless searches, which was released just yesterday -- not 30 years ago.

[neverevergivein]

6. Good point. Don't fall for this DU

It's another Bushism to keep control. But then, you already knew that!

[stillcool]

9. linky's...

http://www.321gold.com/editorials/petrov/petrov011706.html
Krassimir Petrov, Ph. D.
January 17, 2006

Abstract: the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse will accelerate the fall of the American Empire

II. Iranian Oil Bourse

The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate "nuclear" weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam's, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system:

The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target:
The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker
by William Clark
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

The Iranians are about to commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro of Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming euro-based oil Bourse.

In 2005-2006, The Tehran government has a developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market

[tatertop]

44. those are some excellent links

[EFerrari]

11. Something MUST be done to continue the profits to

the corporatists and to distract from the corruption.

Why Iran? Maybe they think they can just recycle the program.

In an odd way, I hope they try it. Because that will be THE END for the Republican Party for the next 40 years.

[Zhade]

22. Unfortunately, it'd also be the end of a lot of lives.

I too yearn for the end of USAmerican triumphalism and empire, but the cost will be so high if we attack Iran.

We won't win.

[EFerrari]

28. Yes, I think you are right. And that's the big picture, isn't it? n/t

[LynnTheDem]

78. You're right; no we won't win.

We're losing in Iraq, and Iraq was a two-bit defenseless 3-rd world nothing.

Iran ain't.

[H2O Man]

23. The PNAC plan

as expressed in the early 1990s was to keep any other nation from becoming a global or regional power. When the US was planning to invade Iraq, some of the neocons predicted that it would lead to a democratic movement in Iran. They had believed the lies of Chalabi, of course. As it has turned out, Iran appears to have greater political support within Iraq than does Uncle Sam. This would help consolidate Iran as the largest regional power in the oil-rich Middle East. I think that they realize the invasion has not had the political results they were led to believe would occur.

[EFerrari]

30. And even after missing the mark on so many levels,

they still believe in their own obstinate tunnel vision.

Truly awe inspiring but in a very bad way. :(

[stepnw1f]

119. Because the Trad-Off of Losing is Making them Wealthy

There is a lot of investment in this war.

[H2O Man]

125. Very true. n/t

[Emit]

74. Good point

But from all that I've read (via looking into Michael Ledeen), they sure have had their hand in trying to find their "Chalabi" to prop up in Iran. Looks like they are pushing democracy in Iran by other means, and have been for some time:

Iran Policy Committee:
Pentagon Mouthpiece, Israeli Ally, MEK Supporter
by John Stanton
www.dissidentvoice.org
May 19, 2005


The Iran Policy Committee (IPC) has a website up and running at iranpolicycommittee.org. <1> The IPC made the news in February of 2005 when it released a report titled “US Options for Iran.” In that report, the IPC recommended that a terrorist group known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) be removed from the US government’s hit list. The authors of the IPC report equate the terrorist MEK with the African National Congress that fought long and hard against the despicable all-white South African regime and its US supporters so many years ago. Of course, the implication here is that the MEK will somehow produce a Nelson Mandela, or at least is on the same playing field as Mandela’s group was.

Those two wacky thoughts should be enough to dismiss the eleven IPC principals, their mission and their clumsy report as nonsense. But here inside the Washington, DC Beltway, it’s never wise to dismiss ignorance until performing background checks on the individuals and their affiliations. The record shows that the IPC operates in very close proximity to the US intelligence community, has the support of 150 members in the US Congress, and is linked to individuals/groups who successfully lied and led the US into another Vietnam-like war, and whose primary purpose is the creation of a US empire that controls the world’s resources and protects a greater Israel. Crazy is selling these days and the loonies are in charge.

The IPC is supported by the neocon all-stars that we’ve come to know and love such as Doug Feith, Frank Gaffney, Mike Ledeen, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, et al. But these first benchers are running out of political muscle as their war in Iraq continues to drain the resources of the American people on all political, economic and military fronts. What’s worse, perhaps, is their “with us or against us” mentality that has caused new political and economic alliances to form (example: South America-China-Iran) and that has accelerated both conventional and nuclear arms races. Having failed on so many fronts, they recognize that to get the US into Iran, some new faces are needed and that’s where the IPC back benchers are critical to the forthcoming anti-Iranian/Persian propaganda operations.

The IPC is linked through its purpose and people to the Coalition for a Democratic Iran and the MEK, the Washington PAC, JINSA, AIPAC, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the DOD, the Center for Security Policy, and all the major US intelligence agencies. IPC members are primarily defense & security contractors/consultants and would benefit financially from a war with Iran.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:FzehjF8Eu_oJ:www.dissidentvoice.org/May05/Stanton0519.htm+Ledeen+Iran+Policy+Committee+&hl=en

Is Iran Next?
The Pentagon neocons who brought you the war in Iraq have a new target
By Tom Barry

Shortly after 9/11, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith began coordinating Pentagon planning for an invasion of Iraq. The challenge facing Feith, the No. 3 civilian in the Defense Department, was to establish a policy rationale for the attack...
~snip~

Echoes of Iran-Contra
This cast of characters indicates that U.S. Middle East policy involves covert and illegal operations that resemble the Iran-Contra operations in the ’80s. Not only are the neoconservatives once again the leading actors, these new covert operations involve at least two Iran-Contra conspirators: Ledeen, who has repeatedly complained that the Bush administration has let its regime-change plans for Iran and Syria “gather mold in the bowels of the bureaucracy”; and Ghorbanifar, who the CIA considers a “serial fabricator” with whom the agency prohibits its agents from having any association

~snip~

In early 2002, Leeden, along with Morris Amitay, a former AIPAC executive director as well as a CSP adviser, founded the Coalition for Democracy in Iran (CDI) to build congressional and administration support for Iran regime change. AIPAC and CDI helped ensure passage of recent House and Senate resolutions that condemn Iran, call for tighter sanctions and express support for Iranian dissidents.

~snip~

Rob Sobhani, an Iranian-American, who like Ledeen and other neoconservatives is a friend of the Shah’s son Reza Pahlavi, is also a CDI member. CDI expresses the common neoconservative position that constructive engagement with the Iranian government—even with the democratic reformists—is merely appeasement. Instead, the United States should proceed immediately to a regime change strategy working closely with the “Iranian people.” Representatives of the Iranian people that could be the front men for a regime change strategy, according to the neoconservatives, include, the Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi (who has also cultivated close ties with the Likud Party in Israel), the Iraq-based guerrilla group Mujahadin-E Khalq (MEK), and expatriate arms dealer Ghorbanifar.

The CDI’s Ledeen, Amitay and Sobhani were featured speakers at a May 2003 forum on “the future of Iran,” sponsored by AEI, the Hudson Institute and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. The forum, chaired by the Hudson Institute’s Meyrav Wurmser, the Israeli-born wife of David Wurmser (he serves as Cheney’s leading expert on Iran and Syria), included a presentation by Uri Lubrani of Israel’s Ministry of Defense. Summarizing the sentiment of neoconservative ideologues and strategists, Meyrav Wurmser said: “Our fight against Iraq was only a battle in a long war. It would be ill-conceived to think we can deal with Iraq alone. We must move on, and faster.”

~snip~

continued here:

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:tKWkcq8SXicJ:www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1114/+Coalition+for+Democracy+in+Iran+Michael+Ledeen+Morris+Amitay&hl=en

More info here on Ledeen, Rob Sobhani, and Reza Pahlavi: post #44. "So, is this their new 'Chalabi' for Iran?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2046689&mesg_id=2047483

[LiberalPartisan]

12. Iran isn't a threat - per se

But they are a terrorist sponsoring state and as such they ought to be made as much a pariah as possible. There is a very energetic student democracy movement inside Iran which the West ought to be funding and supporting by all means possible in the hopes of fometing a new Iranian revolution. Iran, as a sovereign state, as vile as it is, does have the right to develop nuclear weapons if it chooses to do so. Commensurately the West also has the right to bomb their nuclear program out of existence.

[rodeodance]

19. Iran is the new communism/evil We are the infadels/devil, Irag threatened

Israel therefore they are a threat.

[Zhade]

32. Don't you think overthrowing their government once already is enough?

After all, since those who overthrew our puppet government in Iran in 1979 are now Iran's leaders, maybe we should recognize that our meddling isn't a good thing?

It hardly needs to be said that it's very undemocratic as well.

As far as the student movement, the militancy of the b*s* administration saw to it that that movement lost momentum, thanks to Iran rightly feeling threatened after witnessing our actions in the Middle East.

Iran's sponsored terrorism. So has the United States, which is currently performing very much like a terrorist to the rest of the world. Should we Americans be pariahs for the actions of our government?

You are absolutely wrong on our 'right' to bomb, btw. We DON'T have that right. Nothing gives us that right, and to bomb another country for having a nuke program while we have literally thousands of nukes and are the only country to have ever used them is incredibly hypocritical.

[JanMichael]

35. Bingo. However don't expect some "liberals" to understand you.

Seriously it just isn't worth the bandwidth...

[Zhade]

37. The argument is made for the thoughtful who might read it...

...not those who wrongly argue that we have a 'right' to bomb whomever we want.

[JanMichael]

40. Oh I know. I just get sick of conservative minded liberals.

At one time I didn't believe that this breed even existed, it seems so self contradictory, however spending 4 years on DU has opened my eyes.

[Zhade]

45. It's amazing how many conservatives we have here.

I chalk it up to the decades-old (centuries-old?) mis/disinformation campaigns on every subject under the sun waged by our government.

From the lie that marijuana is harmful to the lie that Iraq threatened us to the lie that thin is best and smoking doesn't cause cancer and blacks and other minorities are inferior, the minds of this country's citizens have been so abused and so confused, liberals can be conservative.

I truly think this country is somewhat insane. All that cognitive dissonance makes it kind of inevitable.

[sweetheart]

71. eloquently put

you hit the nail on the head

[Zhade]

83. Thanks, but I wish I didn't have to say it.

I wish it weren't true!

[Raydawg1234]

138. Weird Huh, look at some of the issues this applies to.....

Bush's Spying Program: Liberals take the CONSERVATIVE viewpoint of strict adherence to the Constitution. While Repubs take a LIBERAL interpretation of the constitution supporting increased presidential powers.

Also, in the 1950's Conservatives like Eisenhower, were conservationists. My the times have changed, haven't they?

In Conclusion, the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" are meaningless. They are merely names of two opposing teams.(Clans, tribes, whatever you want to call them)Nothing more, nothing less.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftchick]

43. what Zhade said!

:applause:

[Zhade]

46. Thanks, good to know I'm not alone!

NT!

[EFerrari]

48. You are most certainly NOT alone. n/t

[leftchick]

51. you are not alone...

;)

[EFerrari]

47. THEY are a terrorist sponsoring state?

Pot, meet kettle.

[Warren Stupidity]

69. "the West also has the right to bomb their nuclear program "

Why? Where do we get the right to attack them if they do not behave as we desire?

And on the same subject, do we qualify as a terrorist state? Or is using drone planes to blow up civilians somehow 'not terrorism' while using car bombs to do the same is?

Oh, and as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. etc. all provide some level of material support to various palestinian organizations that would have them fall under your broad umbrella of "a terrorist sponsoring state" do we extend the same pariah status to them, or just the hated Iranians?

[LynnTheDem]

79. What "right" would that be of the west to bomb a sovereign nation?

Just curious, coz international law sure as fuck doesn't say that.

And by the way, as you obviously are unaware, Iran has THE LEGAL RIGHT to R&D nuclear power.

[Emit]

80. But it seems the neo-cons are looking to support other groups

in order to exact change in Iran. (I posted this above)

Iran Policy Committee:
Pentagon Mouthpiece, Israeli Ally, MEK Supporter
by John Stanton
www.dissidentvoice.org
May 19, 2005


The Iran Policy Committee (IPC) has a website up and running at iranpolicycommittee.org. <1> The IPC made the news in February of 2005 when it released a report titled “US Options for Iran.” In that report, the IPC recommended that a terrorist group known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) be removed from the US government’s hit list...
~snip~

The IPC is supported by the neocon all-stars that we’ve come to know and love such as Doug Feith, Frank Gaffney, Mike Ledeen, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, et al. But these first benchers are running out of political muscle as their war in Iraq continues to drain the resources of the American people on all political, economic and military fronts. What’s worse, perhaps, is their “with us or against us” mentality that has caused new political and economic alliances to form (example: South America-China-Iran) and that has accelerated both conventional and nuclear arms races. Having failed on so many fronts, they recognize that to get the US into Iran, some new faces are needed and that’s where the IPC back benchers are critical to the forthcoming anti-Iranian/Persian propaganda operations.

The IPC is linked through its purpose and people to the Coalition for a Democratic Iran and the MEK, the Washington PAC, JINSA, AIPAC, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the DOD, the Center for Security Policy, and all the major US intelligence agencies. IPC members are primarily defense & security contractors/consultants and would benefit financially from a war with Iran.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:FzehjF8Eu_oJ:www.dissidentvoice.org/May05/Stanton0519.htm+Ledeen+Iran+Policy+Committee+&hl=en

[julianer]

86. Balls mostly

Iran is a 'terrorist' state! Unlike the USA which just last week exploded a terroist bomb in Pakistan (by no means a first offence). What sanctions should be taken against this rogue state? Should the international community nuke this sponsor and supporter of international terror?

Your last 'point' is the worst: no one has a 'right' to nuke anyone else, FFS. Do you want the rule of law or the rule of a nuked up Bush?

[Poll_Blind]

13. Don't recall them threatening us. But Israel sure doesn't like them. n/t

PB

[Zhade]

33. So?

NT!

[Kool Kitty]

67. They didn't.

Bushco is just re-airing a film that is titled, "Why We Must Invade Iraq". Notice all the similar language? They just re-cut it to replace all the mentions of Iraq with Iran.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

14. Too bad there isn't a way to to earmark all nuclear materials.... so

that if and when one goes off where it shouldn't... we would know which part of the world to melt down. As it is.... once they are in circulation and able to be put in a shipping container, truck, boat whatever, then they become rather untraceable. This is what makes these guys crazy, the not knowing who to strike out at if something were to happen.

[wookie294]

21. Nuclear material is traceable

Satellites and monitoring equipment detect nuclear bombs. It takes a lot of nuclear material to build a bomb -- enough to be detected by sensors. Any nuke inside a cargo ship would be detected before it reached the shores of the USA.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

25. Uh oh..... you are going to rank right up there with the NSA spy

case leaker... thanks for the heads up... :)

[Ikonoklast]

61. Yep

There was a recent news story about a truck driver pulling a container off one of the East Coast docks, Miami IIRC, and was detained because a radiation detector went off.

Seems that the driver had a recent medical procedure that used mildly radioactive tracking substances, and even that small a level set off the detectors. Those machines are extraordinarily sensitive. He was detained ten hours until they finally figured it out.

I set the detectors off at a portable detection facility once with a load of kitty litter. Kaolin is naturally mildly radioactive.

I would imagine a neutron detector would go crazy if there was any real quantity of fissile material nearby.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

124. Interesting..... thanks for the info... 4

[MadHound]

99. Nuclear material, uranium, plutonium, is traceable

Much like gold is. When you inspect either of these metals, and many others, you can find micrscopic markers, trace elements, etc. that will tell you where such material was mined. Also, the enrichment process leaves its own unique mark. Take these two items together, and one can trace the vast majority of nuclear material from its source to the end product.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Very, and this is very technically speaking

you coudl make a case that a case of war started after the hostage taking... taking an embassy is an act of war... but I am splitting legal hairs here.

After all deposing elected presidents is an act of war too

[wookie294]

17. The threat of Iran is overblown

I saw the German, UK and French ambassadors to the USA on CNN last year. All three agreed that an Iranian nuclear power program is not a threat and each did not oppose a nuclear power program in Iran. They said it would be very easy to monitor whether Iran was attempting to build a bomb. They also said Iran is 10 years away from building a bomb, if it wanted to build one.

The Iran threat is hyped because of the oil. And its leader is loving the world's attention. He now feels like a "real man," for the first time in his life.

[tuvor]

27. Thanks for reminding us of a fundamental question. K/R.

[Swede]

29. Well except for the weekly "Death to America"

I can't remember.

[Zhade]

34. Hell, I say that. :-P

Well, not really, but it's not like that's much more than rhetoric.

But with these guys, soon it'll be "But Muhammad Atta was IRANIAN!"

:eyes:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Well, maybe, not as much as mighty Grenada did.

But, maybe the CIA can discover some Cuban construction workers in Tehran.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

36. I guess invading our embassy

and holding the staff hostage for a year was pretty threatening. But that was 20 years ago. Nothing that needs immediate action, as far as I am concerned.

[Zhade]

38. Then there's the nagging fact that we overthrew their government in 1953.

So we started it, anyway.

[JanMichael]

39. It was in 1979, right? That'd be around 26 years ago.

Closer to 30 than 20...

[TallahasseeGrannie]

41. Gosh, yes

hard to believe. I was teaching first grade art when they were released.

[EFerrari]

49. And looking back, don't you wonder in the least bit what was

going on in that embassy for a culture that prides itself on its treatment of visitors to do that?

I know I do.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

92. I think it was

fundamentalism in its flower. Bad times.

[bloom]

59. Of course then there was the part

the CIA played in keeping the hostages hostage until Reagan(Bush) was inaugurated.

[FearofFutility]

42. You forgot about

THE WAR ON TERROR. It's all about preemptive strategy. Take the war to the terrorists so we don't have to fight them here,blah, blah, blah. Their very existence threatens our way of life. :sarcasm:

The rhetoric on Iran is no surprise.

[Zhade]

50. The rhetoric is no surprise.

Supposedly well-informed Dues buying into the rhetoric, ESPECIALLY after the lies about Iraq have been revealed, that's kind of surprising.

Unless, of course, those people aren't really against the plan...

[meganmonkey]

53. It is unbelievable.

Thanks for posting this thread, we need to bombard people with the truth. We need to counter the propaganda, with facts.

Loudly, and often :)

:patriot:

[Zhade]

55. Thanks for replying. It's the group effort that counts.

I just got bothered enough to ask, you guys stepped up with great replies.

[LunaC]

56. Why Iran is NOT a threat

First of all, Israel, Pakistan and India have nuclear power/weapons and have declined to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but * isn’t complaining about them.

As far as Iran is concerned, they've signed the treaty and they’re trying to “play nice” and quell jittery nerves by inviting the U.S. to bid on constructing its nuclear power plants. The U.S. has responded with stony silence.

http://www.hanfordnews.com/news/2005/story/7280850p-7192722c.html

It should be noted that “IAEA inspectors have been admitted to every nuclear site in the country to which they have sought access and have found no hard evidence, to date, that bombs exist or that Iran has made a decision to build them. (The latest IAEA report can be downloaded at: www.GlobalSecurity.org)”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

Furthermore, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on August 9, 2005. The full text of the fatwa was released in an official statement at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

The NPT gives every state the inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes…..No state has successfully constructed a nuclear weapon in secret while subjected to an NPT inspection regime.

http://www.answers.com/topic/nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty

“Iran is a threat” is nothing more than propaganda to further the PNAC agenda. Anyone believing otherwise hasn’t been paying attention.

[hootinholler]

57. 1953

That's why we sent the CIA in to overthrow the democratic government and re-installed the Shah.

He lasted until '79

-Hoot

[katinmn]

58. Israel threatened to nuke Iran

I don't think Iran threatened to nuke us. They won't even have the capability for at least five years, unless they get some help from major trading partners, like Russia and China who depend on Iran's oil and will certainly not look the other way at any disruption.

[Egalitariat]

60. The word "yet" in your post is crucial. Do you suggest we wait until

they do have the nukes before "something is done"?

[Zhade]

65. I don't suggest WE do shit.

I don't even think much has to be done, other than diplomacy.

Iran is not going to attack us. It's a paranoid fantasy helpful to the neoconservative movement's stated goals of a 'transformed (through violent means) Middle East' to think otherwise. Most educated liberals and progressives understand that preventative war (the true name for the b*s* doctrine of attacking a country that isn't threatening us) is not only illegal but immoral.

We don't really need to do anything aside from working with the UN and Iran (which, as noted above, is allowing inspections everywhere) and calming the fuck down.

[LynnTheDem]

81. Well gee, better murder me! Don't wanna wait until I may might perhaps

some day get a nuke!

Geebus frigging Cripes.

Let's bomb the entire fucking world, ourselves included, just in case.

[Dunedain]

139. Thats the direction it seems to be inexorably going in, doesn't it?

[sandnsea]

63. The reason it isn't a current threat

is because a variety of countries have created nuclear oversight to attempt to keep countries from becoming a threat. That's all that is going on with Iran, or at least that's all that should be going on with Iran. Once again, I see DUers twisting some people's words into support for war when that is the farthest thing from what they're saying. Working for nonproliferation is the exact OPPOSITE of supporting war.

[Zhade]

66. No twisting on my behalf.

I believe I've not quoted one single person, period, so that remark doesn't apply to me whatsoever.

And I do agree that working for nonproliferation is working against war. I'm addressing the idea that there is a threat and that we need to bomb them, which I HAVE seen expressed on this very board - a board that should know better!

[sandnsea]

68. I'll take your word for it

Because I haven't seen anybody say we should bomb Iran.

[Warren Stupidity]

76. See post #12

And there have been quite a few other posts on here that seem to imply that if Iran does not submit to our demands that military action is appropriate. How that differs from saying "we should bomb Iran" is debatable.

[Zhade]

82. You're not looking very hard.

I appreciate your vote of confidence in my trustworthiness, but there's no need to take my word for it, as there's an example in this very thread.

[sandnsea]

96. Yeah well

I'm not allowed to say what I think about that particular post, except to say don't take everything you read seriously. But I will say I didn't think there was an onlsaught of real DU support for bombing Iran.

[Zhade]

128. Nah, I don't think it's necessarily a deluge or anything.

But, aside from, shall we say 'short term posters', I have seen 1000+ posters suggest we attack if Iran 'deosn't comply'. There was a thread asking if we should by, I believe, smoogatz, that contained such posts (I need to donate so i can use the search again, though).

Regardless, even ONE non-freeper thinking we have the right to attack, or should attack, is one too many, especially after the Iraq debacle!

[Warren Stupidity]

70. The entire basis of the nonproliferation treaty collapsed

when we invaded Iraq. The non nuclear nations supposedly did not need nuclear weapons to defend themselves because the nuclear super powers were not going to use their superior nuclear or conventional forces to commit acts of aggression against the lesser nations. Sorry, but our 'diplomatic offensive' is total bullshit. Iran learned the lesson of its two cohorts in the Bush Cabal's infamous 'Axis of Evil': nuke up or die. We are reaping what we have sown. A nuclear Iran is just more of the blowback from the neocon folly.

By the way it is rumored that our good buddies the Saud family have a nuke or two in their little arsenal. How come we don't have a turd over that?

[sandnsea]

73. No it didn't

That's just ridiculous. It is ludicrous that the rest of the world would have to stand aside on WMD nonproliferation in Iran just because George Bush is an idiot. Certainly they're screwing up on Iran, but it doesn't change the fact that Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a very dangerous scenario. Supporting alternative solutions to war seems smart to me.

[Warren Stupidity]

75. Can you debate without being insulting?

"That's just ridiculous. It is ludicrous..."

Sorry but if you would like to discuss things, lets do it. If you just want to hurl insults and utter banal dismissals then you are being an ass.

Once again: one of the fundamental reasons for the non nuclear nations signing on to the non proliferation treaty was that they, in exchange, would not be threatened by the superior conventional or nuclear forces of the nuclear super powers - meaning primarily Russia and the USA. When we marched into Baghdad, that half of the bargain was rendered null and void. Iran has every reason to believe, as the third member of the 'axis of evil' targeted by the Bush Cabal, that its survival as a nation is in peril and that without a nuclear deterrence it will suffer the same fate as its neighbor. They have the right to self defense.

"rest of the world would have to stand aside on WMD nonproliferation" ... We, not the rest of the world, are leading the charge here and beating the war drums and pushing this to a crisis. The rest of the world is well aware of what we are up to and they are trying to find some way to put off our plans. Iran is not the problem, we are.

[LunaC]

90. "Iran is not the problem, we are."

Thank you for succinctly stating the Bottom Line which seems to escape an alarmingly large number of posters.

[sandnsea]

97. That is not an insult

Since you're so sensitive, I'll just remember not to respond to you in the future. Have a good day.

[Warren Stupidity]

101. "That's just ridiculous. It is ludicrous ..." not insulting or dismissive.

Ok. It seems that according to you I'm just being thin skinned. And then I'm being dismissed. Got it.

Meanwhile, other than arguably being insulting and dismissive you have said nothing at all about my point: the NPT was rendered null and void by our marching into Baghdad.

[sandnsea]

104. I didn't insult you

If you were to tell me the sky is green, "that's ridiculous" would be my response because saying the sky is green is ridiculous. Whether you are ridiculous or just mistaken is up for debate, the issue of the green sky isn't. Stating nonproliferation treaties are void because of Iraq is ridiculous, especially because no major world entity has made the claim. It's as ridiculous as stating the sky is green. If you choose to take that as a personal insult, I can't stop you. But I also don't have to engage in debates where words are nitpicked and distorted.

[Warren Stupidity]

109. Ah an actual point is made in rebuttal.

"Stating nonproliferation treaties are void because of Iraq is ridiculous, especially because no major world entity has made the claim."

You simply misunderstand what I am saying. Yes of course on paper the NPT stands. In reality, as a direct consequence of our invasion of Iraq and our stated intentions to treat North Korea and Iran in the same manner, for the reasons I previously stated, the NPT has been effectively rendered null and void. Of course no 'major world entity' is going to make that explicit. Instead, as we have seen: North Korea simply pulled out, Iran is moving forward, China and Russia are toying with us over our efforts to make Iran a crisis, and the NPT is as dead as dead can be, more blowback from the neocon folly.

[sandnsea]

112. I disagree

I don't think any 4 countries dictate the validity of any treaty. It's like saying because there are murders in America, the laws against murder are effectively rendered null and void. Eeek, there comes that ridiculous word again...

[Warren Stupidity]

115. Bad analogy.

"It's like saying because there are murders in America, the laws against murder are effectively rendered null and void."

No it isn't. I'll state what I said again. The NPT is based on certain assumptions, one of which is that the non nuclear states do not have to fear aggression against them by the nuclear super powers. It is on this foundation that the non nuclear states signatories agreed to not develop nuclear weapons.

Iran is quite reasonable to fear that the US intends to destroy the current regime through the use of military force. I am not making the claim that the NPT is null and void because of the existence of violators, I am making the claim that it is null and void because our government has failed to keep its half of the bargain.

[Zhade]

129. Very good point.

Thanks for clarifying that. I agree.

[Zhade]

84. Please explain HOW a nuclear-armed Iran...

...assuming it happens at all, with their technology problems and the years it will take, is more of a threat than a nuclear-armed Pakistan or any other country, our own included.

Bad? Yeah, nukes are bad in general. But it's hardly a crisis. We seem to feel differently on the question of urgency. So why do you feel it's so much more urgent than I do?

[sandnsea]

98. The threats they've made.

very recent threats, to actually use the nuclear weapons and wipe Israel off the map. That's what makes them a little different.

I don't think it's urgent or a crisis. But I don't think it's nonexistent or patty-cake either. Mostly, I think it's hypocritical for those on the left to say this is hyperbole when just months ago they used the threat of Iran as an example of Bush's failures.

[Warren Stupidity]

103. Which very recent threat was that? nt.

[sandnsea]

105. As reported in Al-Jazeera

I trust that is an adequate source for you.


"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm

[Warren Stupidity]

110. Which statement, as reprehensible as it is,

makes no threat at all to use nuclear weapons.

[sandnsea]

111. That wasn't your question

Go back and re-read it.

[Warren Stupidity]

113. Your statement:

"very recent threats, to actually use the nuclear weapons and wipe Israel off the map"

Perhaps you should go back and edit it?

[sandnsea]

117. Your question

Please explain how a nuclear-armed Iran is more of a threat..

Followed by your contention that Iran isn't and hasn't made any recent threats against Israel at all.

What do you think they mean by wipe Israel off the map?

Which isn't to state that I remotely believe Iran is the kind of threat Bush is hyping it to be.

[Warren Stupidity]

118. Not my question. That was another poster.

You asserted that Iran had threatened to nuke Israel. I asked when, you provided a link that did not back up your assertion.

[sandnsea]

120. Oh for pete's sake

Now I am going to insult you. If you didn't intend to follow up on the question I responded to, you should have said so at the time. Go play mind games with somebody else.

[Warren Stupidity]

122. I responded directly to the following statement of yours.

You: "The threats they've made.
very recent threats, to actually use the nuclear weapons and wipe Israel off the map. That's what makes them a little different."

Me: Which very recent threat was that? nt.

You: I trust that is an adequate source for you.

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46...

Me: Which statement, as reprehensible as it is, makes no threat at all to use nuclear weapons.

The games are entirely in your mind. You made an assertion that you couldn't back up. Now rather than admit that you got it wrong, you are pretending that you didn't make the claim that Iran made very recent threats to use nuclear weapons.

[sandnsea]

123. Okay fine

They just meant wipe Iran off the map with an eraser. My bad.

Again, I'm not saying that they're the kind of threat that Bush is hyping them to be, but as with Iraq, to just pretend the entire world is peace loving except for the US and western powers is intellectually dishonest or naive. In my view, it's a bunch of mind games by people who put anti-western, anti-capitalism ideology over common sense.

[Zhade]

132. Of course, none of us are saying the rest of the world is peace-loving.

That's a strawman argument on your part.

[Zhade]

130. You changed your statement.

What you actually said: "The threats they've made. very recent threats, to actually use the nuclear weapons and wipe Israel off the map"

Now you're saying you DIDN'T say that they threatened to use nukes.

But you did, indeed, say that.

[SPKrazy]

64. They Threatened the 51st State

The state of Israel

[Pobeka]

72. Iran is sitting on 8-10% of the world's supply of natural gas.

See the threat now?

[LynnTheDem]

77. Same time Iraq did.

You watch; the bushCartel & the rightwingnuts will very soon be going on about Iran having started the IRAN-Iraq war, about IRAN having "gassed their own people", mass graves in IRAN, et-fucking-cetera.

And of course most rightwingnuts will fall for the bullshit, including the Purple Plastic People Chipper machine.

How the fuck did so many Americans get so fucking stupid???

[Zhade]

85. We've been lied to for so long, we're nuts.

It's looking like the most plausible explanation these days!

[Stockholm]

88. Let´s be frank

Iran is absolutely no threat to the US. I would go so far as to say that Iran throughout history has served as a peaceful and stabilizing factor in the middle east.

If anyone believe Iran is a threat, you need to study the subject. I suggest Informed Comment as a good place to start. If afterwards, anyone still believe Iran is a threat to the US, you are either stupid or a stupid mole.

[Warren Stupidity]

95. Having made the same point - here is a head's up.

Back in the 1740's Persia was aggressively trying to fend off Russia and Turkey and establish itself as a regional power. It failed. Just letting you know that the supporter's of the next war will go to absurd lengths to portray Iran as a Big Threat.

So - rather than claiming 'throughout history' just qualify that with 'throughout modern history'. This will also fend off those who point out the whole Xerxes thing (Thermopylae etc.)

[Behind the Aegis]

89. They have, in the past.

However, they do not have the means to carry out their threats. It is no more than "pissing in the wind." The 'something must be done" is not only coming from the US. Many countries are not wanting Iran to have nuclear weapons. Thus, a number of countries are trying to negotiate with her. There are only two things that are in play, as far as the US is concerned,: oil (as was with Iraq) and the change of the international exchange (changing from dollars to Euros).

The other problem is that Iran is a signatory of the NPT, and therefore, is supposed to follow it's guidelines. However, if they fail to do so, then it should be the international community that holds her responsible, not the US, alone.

There may be some here (at DU) falling for the same lies, but it isn't just the lie of a "threat' that they are falling for!

[mdmc]

93. they took hostages in 79

good enough for bush.

The "harm" they have done is that they want to be an independent country, and they want nukes. Nukes makes them stronger, and the USA weaker. we cannot be made weaker, thus they are a threat.

[Beelzebud]

106. They didn't. But we are a nation of war fanatics, freaks, and fascists.

[Coastie for Truth]

116. llThomas Friedman, The New 'Sputnik' Challenges: They All Run on Oil,

I came to Detroit looking for the hottest new American cars. Instead, I found Sputnik.

You remember Sputnik - the little satellite the Soviets launched in 1957. The Eisenhower administration was so stunned it put the U.S. into a crash program to train more scientists and engineers so America could catch up with the Russians in the space race.

<<<snip>>>

That doesn't get your attention? Well, there's another Sputnik that just went up: Iran. It's going to make a nuclear bomb, no matter what the U.N. or U.S. says, because at $60-a-barrel oil, Tehran's mullahs are rich enough to buy off or tell off the rest of the world. That doesn't worry you? Well, there's a quieter Sputnik orbiting Earth. It's called climate change - a k a Katrina and melting glaciers.

What am I saying here? I am saying that our era doesn't have a single Sputnik to grab our attention and crystallize the threat to our security and way of life in one little steel ball - the way our parents' era did. But that doesn't mean such threats don't exist. They do, and they have a single common denominator: the way we use and consume energy today, particularly oil.

<<<SNIP>>>

FULL TEXT IN MY BLOG,

[Zhade]

133. Friedman's not exactly worth the paper he's printed on.

For one thing, he's not the most honest opinionist, and his analysis frequently make no sense to anyone not right-of-center (those living apart from actual reality).

[Coastie for Truth]

136. You and I have crossed swords before.

There is an impending oil shortfall, and Iran's Bourse is a possible destabilizing factor in the Bretton Woods systemm.

Friedman's article is just evidence that people from across the political spectrum - right to left, neocon/PNAC to Green/Greenpeace recognize that we are in deep doodoo with respect to our energy balance --- and Bush's wishin' and Cheney's pissin' in the wind and aggressive wars for oil won't make it better.

I would commend to your attention James Howard Kunstler, The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of the Oil Age, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century, or for a different viewpoint I would recommend Amory Lovins, Winning the Oil Endgame : Innovation for Profit, Jobs and Security, or perchance, Matthew Simmons, Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy, and maybe for some scientific backup, Ken Deffeyes' two books, Beyond Oil : The View from Hubbert's Peak or Hubbert's Peak : The Impending World Oil Shortage. See Anthony Evans' An Introduction to Economic Geology and Its Environmental Impact for a good non-technical read on petroleum geology.

You don't have to buy Friedman's "gas tax" - you can go with the PNAC doctrine of aggressive wars to project military power and assert hegemony of other people's oil, as described in PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses, and as explained simply in Paul Sperry's Crude Politics : How Bush's Oil Cronies Hijacked the War on Terrorism. Or, as most progressives suggest, we can conserve and research our way out of it.

And if you want to get screwed up like me, start with Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering by Warren McCabe, Julian Smith, and Peter Harriott and go on to Transport Phenomena, 2nd Edition by R. Byron Bird, Warren E. Stewart, and Edwin N. Lightfoot.

[Zhade]

137. We have?

I don't recall. Must not have been all that heated.

But yeah, I don't waste my time with Friedman. Personal choice, sorry about that. I'll keep your others in mind, though.

As far as PNAC, I was decrying it here years before you signed onto DU, so we're on the same page there! And there's the little matter of the original name of the illegal war we're in: Operation Iraqi Liberation.

You can't MAKE this stuff up!

[The Magistrate]

121. Unfortunately, Mr. Zhade

The present rights and wrongs of the situation matter very little politically. The great political fact of the landscape is that the bulk of the people of out country nurse an old grudge against Iran, dating from the occupation of the Tehran embassy in '79. Therefore agitation that looks like, and can be made to seem like, defense of the mullahs' regime there is doomed to failure, and not only to failure, but to active distaste for its promulgators among the bulk of the electorate.

On the question of the mullahs' regime's intentions regarding nuclear development, it is difficult to sustain the case they are not seeking nuclear weaponry by their program, for the attempt to do so must rely on the proposition that the whole of their actons in the matter are known, and that seems a very dubious proposition. It is certainly reasonable to suppose that, whatever their protestation to the contrary, the mullahs seek such armaments, for they serve as a gaurantee of non-interference for any state possessig them, and greatly enhance the military prestige of states that possess them.

[bpilgrim]

131. he whole of their actions in the matter are known - a known, unknown, eh?

you can steal rummy's line all you like, it still don't change the fact that we have 0 proof on this matter, like last time & it would still be a WAR CRIME to fight a PREVENTIVE WAR, again.

peace

[Zhade]

134. I'm guessing Magistrate knows that, and doesn't condone attacking Iran.

You're both right: there's no proof, but I'd be surprised if Iran wasn't seeking nukes to keep us from attacking them.

That said, STILL doesn't justify us attacking them.

[DanCa]

135. Well maybe the Freepers are still mad at the Iron Shiek wrestler?

You know they cant tell reality from fiction.